ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Motor synchrony, social learning and closeness in group play settings.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Playful activities provide critical opportunities for rhythmic interactions, which may affect social and cognitive development in early childhood. Prior research suggests that motor synchrony promotes closeness and prosocial behaviour, but few studies have examined its role in social learning and in group settings. Method: This study investigated whether motor synchrony in a clapping game, enhances preschoolers' closeness with others, imitation, over-imitation, and sharing behaviour. In a group setting, motor synchrony and asynchrony were experimentally induced between the child and two experimenters. We hypothesized that children would feel closer, imitate more, and share more with an adult partner who moved in synchrony compared to one who moved asynchronously. Results: Bayesian analyses revealed no credible evidence that the children affiliated, imitated, over-imitated, or shared differently with their synchronous vs. asynchronous partner (BF10 = 0.045-0.216). Manipulation checks indicated that although the adults adhered to the stimuli, there was overall low motor synchrony. Discussion: These findings highlight the challenges of inducing motor synchrony in playful group settings and raise questions about the level of synchrony necessary to impact social affiliation and learning in young children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.